Sean Hickey

Christopher Mitchell pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the shooting death of John Wheeler.

The sentencing was adjourned to allow for the preparation of records and a psychological report.

At the sentencing hearing, the Crown and defence jointly recommended a parole ineligibility period of 18 years.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, and the background and mental health of Mr. Mitchell.

The court accepted the joint submission, imposing a life sentence with 18 years of parole ineligibility, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The offender was convicted of unauthorized possession of a loaded firearm following an acquittal for second-degree murder.

The Crown sought 8-10 years, while the defence sought 4-6 years.

The court considered the offender's serious criminal record, including prior firearm and violence convictions, and breaches of weapons prohibitions, as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included his youth, family support, disadvantaged background, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court determined the appropriate range for a second s. 95 offence is 6-9 years and imposed a sentence of 7 years, less 834 days of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

Jermaine Simpson pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm, robbery, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon stemming from two separate incidents, including a violent home invasion.

The Crown sought a long-term offender designation and a 10.5-year global sentence with a 10-year Long-term Supervision Order (LTSO).

The accused conceded the LTO designation but sought a 5-year sentence (no further imprisonment) and a 7-year LTSO.

The court designated Simpson a long-term offender, imposed a global sentence of 7 years' imprisonment (resulting in 22 months further incarceration after credit for pre-sentence custody), and ordered a 10-year LTSO, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the home invasion, presence of a child, serious victim injuries, and the accused's record, balanced against mitigating factors including his guilty plea, mental health issues, and difficult childhood.

The accused, Naod Tsegazab, was charged with second-degree murder and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm after a fatal shooting in an apartment stairwell.

The co-accused, Joseph Bryan, was charged with accessory after the fact to murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and surveillance video.

The court found an air of reality to Tsegazab's claim of self-defence, as the deceased had led him into the stairwell and fired ten shots at him.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tsegazab did not act in self-defence.

Tsegazab was acquitted of murder but convicted of the firearms charge.

Consequently, Bryan was acquitted of being an accessory after the fact.

During a trial for four counts of first-degree murder, the accused brought an application to exclude expert evidence regarding gunshot residue (GSR) found in his vehicle 14 months after the homicides.

The court reviewed the extensive history of the vehicle, including multiple police seizures and the accused's frequent discharge of firearms in other incidents.

The court concluded that the GSR evidence lacked any probative nexus to the specific homicides and that its admission would be highly prejudicial.

The application to exclude the evidence was granted.

Accused persons charged with murder brought applications to exclude historical text messages obtained by police through a production order directed to a telecommunications provider.

They argued that s. 487.012 of the Criminal Code did not authorize the production of private communications, or alternatively that the provision violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The court held that stored historical text messages constitute “data” within the meaning of the provision and that obtaining them by production order does not amount to interception of private communications under Part VI.

The statutory prerequisites for a production order satisfied constitutional standards for reasonable search and seizure.

The applications to exclude the evidence were dismissed.

Sentencing following convictions for a planned jewellery store robbery involving firearms where an employee was shot and seriously injured.

The offender was found guilty of multiple offences including robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault, using a firearm to commit aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, masked robbery, and firearms possession offences while under prohibition orders.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the premeditated nature of the robbery, the offender’s extensive criminal record, and his disregard for firearms prohibition orders.

A global sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment was determined appropriate prior to credit for pre-sentence custody.

After applying 1.5:1 credit for 29 months of pre-sentence custody, the effective remaining sentence was reduced to approximately 8 years and 4.5 months.

The offender was sentenced for his role in a violent armed robbery of a jewellery store, during which his co-accused shot and wounded an employee.

The court considered the offender's significant cooperation with police in a separate murder investigation, which placed him at great personal risk and resulted in harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court determined a global sentence of six years was appropriate, which was reduced to 27.5 months after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.